Mumbai Court January 2007 Judgments
Hikal Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-2007
Reported in: (2007)(213)ELT563Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal against the Order No. AT/504/bel/2005 dated 22-9-2005 of the Commissioner (Appeals) by which the appellant's appeal against the order of the Assistant Commissioner No. 62/04-05 dated 11-4-2005 was rejected.3. By the order dated 11-4-2005, the Assistant Commissioner sanctioned the refund of Rs. 5 lakhs, which was paid by the appellant during the course of investigation by the officers of DGCEI as the proceedings initiated in pursuance of the investigation against the appellant was dropped by the Commissioner's (Adjudication) Order No. 39/2002 dated 4-4-2002. The Assistant Commissioner, however, rejected the claim for interest on the refund on two grounds: - First ground is that the appellants had not submitted the original TR-6 challan till 5-4-2005 and second ground is that interest becomes due only when the dispute is finally settled. His findings in this regard are reproduced below: Further, as regard to interest, I observe that the assessee had earlier filed th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Jayashree Suraksha Rankshak
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-2007
Reported in: (2007)7STR147
1. These appeals by the Department are on a common issue and therefore being disposed of by this common order. The appellants provide the taxable services under heading Security Agency and Manpower Recruitment Agency In addition, they also render services of cleaning & gardening etc. which are not taxable services. In respect of their taxable services, there has been demand of service tax, interest and imposition of penalty. The same is not in dispute. The dispute relates to certain amount collected by the appellants in respect of non taxable services representing service tax and the department seeks to recover the same in terms of Section 11D of the C.E. Act, 1944 which are made applicable to Service Tax matters with effect from 16-8-2002.3. The learned DR submits that in respect of the non taxable services also the appellants have shown, in certain cases, the Service Tax components in the invoice and in other cases though they have not mentioned the amount separately in the invo...
Tag this Judgment!Utv Software Communications Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-2007
Reported in: (2007)(116)ECC544
1. This is an appeal against the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) bearing No. BR/(91)30/STC/2006 dated 20.04.2006 by which their appeal has been dismissed as time barred.2. Heard both sides. The Commissioner has rejected the appeal holding that there was delay of 35 days beyond the period of 60 days in terms of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.3. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that they have received the order in original only on 13.6.05 and they thought that they have filed the appeal within the period of three months from the date of receipt of the order under Section 85(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 which is the relevant Section governing time limit for filing appeal in Service Tax matters.4. The learned DR submits that there is an error in applying the time limit in prescrioed in 35 of the Central Excise Act towards Service Tax matter.5. The learned Advocate agrees to retain the Deposit as per CESTAT Order No. S/823/C-IV/SMB/WZB/2006 dated 30....
Tag this Judgment!Harshad P. Doshi Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-2007
Reported in: (2007)109TTJ(Mum.)335
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee on 17th April, 2006 against the order of the learned CIT(A)-XXV, Mumbai dt. 5th March, 2006 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment order under Section 143(3) for asst. yr. 2003-04.2. In this appeal, the assessee has disputed the order of the learned CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of assessee's claim of deduction under Section 80-IB(10) to the extent of Rs. 44,43,100 on the ground that shopping area included in the housing project of the assessee is not entitled to deduction under Section 80-IB(10).3. Facts of the case leading to this dispute briefly are that the assessee was engaged in the business of building construction. In the return of income filed the assessee claimed that some of building projects undertaken by him were eligible for deduction under the provisions of Section 80-IB(10). Accordingly, he claimed deduction aggregating Rs. 6,04,50,350. The learned AO found that in those building projects certain area wa...
Tag this Judgment!Status Polymers Vs. Commissioner of Customs and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-2007
Reported in: (2007)9STJ105CESTAT(Mum.)bai
1. The application is for restoration of the appeal dismissed earlier vide order No. A/1217/WZB/2006/CSTB dated 31/10/2006 for non-compliance with the directions to deposit an amount of Rs. 1 lakh. It is the appellants' case that the deposit was made well within the time granted by the stay order and the report was submitted with the registry. It seems that the said report was not placed before the bench.2. In view of the above, we restore the appeal to its original number and allow the Miscellaneous Application....
Tag this Judgment!Kanji Manji Kothari and Co. and Vs. Uco Bank
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-2007
Reported in: I(2008)BC91
1. This appeal is filed challenging order dated 8th (sic) 2006 passed by the In-charge Presiding Officer, D.R.T.-I, Mumbai rejecting appeal/application filed under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the SRFAESI Act) on the ground of limitation. The following facts are undisputed.2. One notice dated 7th April, 2005 under Section 13(2) of the SRFAESI Act was served on the appellants by one branch of the respondent Bank and other notice dated 11th June, 2005 was served on the appellants by another branch of the respondent Bank in respect of the other account.A symbolic possession of the property in question was taken on 15th July, 2005 but the actual possession of the property was taken by the respondent Bank on 13th March, 2006 and the appeal/ application under Section 17 of the SRFAESI Act was filed before the D.R.T. on 10th April, 2006.3. It is contended on behalf of the res...
Tag this Judgment!Sudarshan Chemical Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-2007
Reported in: (2007)(213)ELT569Tri(Mum.)bai
1. A short issue involved in the present appeal is as to whether appellants are liable to pay interest on the differential duty short paid by them to the extent of Rs. 6,70,223.67 on the ground of under valuation of the goods during the period July 2000 to March 2003. The appellants have challenged the confirmation of interest on the ground that duty was paid by them before issuance of the show cause notice and as such in terms of the Larger Bench decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Machino Montell confirmation of interest in terms of the proviso to Section AB(1) cannot be upheld.2. After hearing both the sides, I find that the interest stands confirmed against the appellant in terms of amended provision to Section AB(1) which provide for payment of interest in respect of duty not paid or short paid or wherever the assessee have paid the duty in terms of Sub-section 2B of Section 11 A. The said Sub-section 2B of Section 11A is to the effect that where the assesse...
Tag this Judgment!C.S. Suvarna Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-2007
Reported in: (2007)8STT79
1. The appellant has been held liable to pay service tax by treating him as clearing and forwarding agent during the period 2000-2001 & 2002-2003.2. After hearing both sides and going through the impugned order, we find that the appellant was engaged in procuring the orders from the various Government and Semi-Government department for his principal manufacturer M/s. Celtak Batteries Pvt. Ltd., for which he was receiving a commission of 2%. He was not dealing with the goods.However, the lower authorities have held that the services rendered by the appellant are enough to hold a relationship between the principal and the assessee and are liable to tax as clearing and forwarding agent.3. We find that the issue is no more res integra and stands settled by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. 2006 (3) S.T.R. 321 (Tri. - LB). It has been held in the said decision that mere booking of orders for the principal by an agent on commission basis a...
Tag this Judgment!Prashanti Agencies Vs. Commissioner (St) Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-2007
Reported in: (2007)9STJ120CESTAT(Mum.)bai
1. Demand of service tax stands confirmed against the appellant as Clearing and Forwarding Agents by holding that they were acting as consignment sales agent of M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. and were appointed Del Credere Agent of M/s. Reliance Industries.2. The appellants contention duly represented Shri Rajiv Luthia Advocate for the appellant and Shri P.K. Katiyar Ld. SDR for the respondents in terms of the agreement entered into by the appellant with M/s Reliance Industries Ltd. they are appointed as Del Credere Agent, whose job is to promote the sales of the principals product and to inspire the customers to purchase the product by placing necessary orders. Such orders procured by the firm from their customers were complied with by M/s. Reliance Industries by supplying the product directly to the customers. Delivery challan and invoices and other documents on the customers was being raised by M/s. Reliance Industries and the appellants were entitled to commission only after the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Yashwant Shell Sand Mfg. Co. Vs. the Commissioner of Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-2007
Reported in: (2007)(116)ECC489
1. Vide their impugned orders, the authorities below have confirmed demand of duty of Rs. 9,67,814/- against the appellants on the allegations and finding of clandestine removal. In addition, personal penalty of identical amount stands imposed in terms of provisions of Section 11AC.2. As per facts on record, the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Resin Coated Sand falling under Chapter 68 of Central Excise Tariff Act. 1985 in their factory located at Shinoli, District Kolhapur. The factory was visited by the Central Excise Officers on 18/10/2003 and 19/10/2003, who conducted various checks and verifications. During scrutiny of documents, the officers laid their hands on a register maintained by the driver of the truck showing inward/outward entries. On comparison of the same with the statutory documents, they were found not to be tallying with the clearance invoices. The said register along with other incriminating documents was seized by the officers under panchnama dated 1...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »